Thursday, September 22, 2011

This is why I make it a point to eat at Chik-fil-A

A disturbing trend in modern society has been the equation of "tolerance" with "support". As in, it's not enough to live and let live, or to agree to disagree. The "intolerant" party has to actively come around to the "tolerated" party's position, even if doing so would betray his or her own personal beliefs. Sanctity of thought, it seems, is only for the protected class. To do otherwise is to be accused of "hate" (another highly misused word) and to risk attack from those being "hated". The gay rights movement is particularly bald-faced about this. For example, see the case of Stacy Trasancos.
Stacy wrote a blog post complaining about homosexual PDA in public areas, especially areas with lots of small children -- parks and public pools. (She has seven kids.) Now, had she complained about public displays of affection in general, or about girls wearing low-cut tops, or something like that, she would have been written off as a prude and likely forgotten. Instead, as noted in Stacy McCain's post (linked above), she was swamped with a tsunami of vitriol, threats and promises to rape her children.
And she's the one with the hate problem?
Note that she's not some frothing "ARGH teh GAYZ" crusader; she's not on a street corner with a sign that says "God hates British cigarettes." The second half of the offending post is an admitted rant where she laments the degredation of society in general. I don't agree with her on exactly every point (for example, I'm okay with the idea of IVF), but I will stand with her because of what she's experienced for expressing them.
When Christians were a new thing, still a novelty, those offended by them tried to wipe them out. They did so with prison, torture and execution. Unfortunately (for them) this had the opposite effect intended. Now -- now they've switched tactics. The modern-day Pharisees don't drag Christians off to jail; they condemn them for being intolerant and narrow-minded, and chastise them for wrongthink. It's a far, far more insidious and effective tactic. "Recant your beliefs, or be killed" is in today's world far less effecitve than "Recant your beliefs, or be branded and shunned." It's much easier to muster physical courage than mental.
So I stand with Stacy Trasanco. Not just because we're both Christians; not just because we share the same core beliefs. But because it's the right thing to do. I would bet money (if I had any) that although Stacy is opposed to the gay lifestyle, she is not opposed to gay people. The commenters seen on her blog, however, are quite obviously opposed not to her ideas, but to her. It's the difference between "I don't like tomatoes, so I won't buy them" and "I don't like tomatoes, so I'll firebomb the farmer's market." Jesus called on us to love our neighbors as ourselves, but love doesn't equal approval. The opposite is also true -- disapproval doesn't equal hate. Stacy, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
If you've read this far and you don't have a vein popping, here's a final word of encouragement:

So these men were brought before the king, nd Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the image of gold I have set up? Now when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image I made, very good. But if you do not worship it, you will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace. Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?”

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to him, “King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”